Only 2% of people on welfare tested for drugs in florida came up with positive drug tests.

not a huge fan of rachel maddow so bear with me on the source mods sorry if i put this thread in the wrong forum.

drug testing people on welfare.

‎"Only about 2% of applicants tested positive, and Florida was forced to reimburse everyone else for the cost of the drug test, plus pay for staff and administrative costs for the drug-testing program, plus pay the legal fees to defend the policy against court challenges -- and the challenges were successful."

i found this tidbit of information very interesting. lets stop demonizing welfare recipients and find a way to bring the jobs back to america and put these people back to work! perhaps government assistance getting these people to move to a place where there is available work.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
not a huge fan of rachel maddow so bear with me on the source

mods sorry if i put this thread in the wrong forum.

drug testing people on welfare.

‎"Only about 2% of applicants tested positive, and Florida was forced to reimburse everyone else for the cost of the drug test, plus pay for staff and administrative costs for the drug-testing program, plus pay the legal fees to defend the policy against court challenges -- and the challenges were successful."

i found this tidbit of information very interesting. lets stop demonizing welfare recipients and find a way to bring the jobs back to america and put these people back to work! perhaps government assistance getting these people to move to a place where there is available work.

I am against the program even if 98% of them tested positive.

The only way this is in any way a good idea is if you then take the children from the ones who fail the drug tests.

By refusing the parent welfare assistance you do nothing to curb their behavior and everything to put the child in more jeopardy.

I would support any similar program if the affected person's children were then removed from their home. Without that, it just perpetuates a cycle that puts the children at risk.

Didn't the governors wife own all the testing facilities the drug tests were run under? I think it was one huge crony scam.

reply to post by conspiracy nut


Not to play the devil's advocate but at my school there are 6 people I personally know that are on welfare and I saw first hand use drugs. I'm not in Florida but they tell there are pills and such you can take that don't show up in the tests. The only way, by their own admission, they have/can be caught is with blood or hair testing. Urine testing is a total waste of time and money.

Originally posted by ThaLoccster

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
not a huge fan of rachel maddow so bear with me on the source

mods sorry if i put this thread in the wrong forum.

drug testing people on welfare.

‎"Only about 2% of applicants tested positive, and Florida was forced to reimburse everyone else for the cost of the drug test, plus pay for staff and administrative costs for the drug-testing program, plus pay the legal fees to defend the policy against court challenges -- and the challenges were successful."

i found this tidbit of information very interesting. lets stop demonizing welfare recipients and find a way to bring the jobs back to america and put these people back to work! perhaps government assistance getting these people to move to a place where there is available work.

I am against the program even if 98% of them tested positive.

The only way this is in any way a good idea is if you then take the children from the ones who fail the drug tests.

By refusing the parent welfare assistance you do nothing to curb their behavior and everything to put the child in more jeopardy.

I would support any similar program if the affected person's children were then removed from their home. Without that, it just perpetuates a cycle that puts the children at risk.

And i would support taking the children away from those on welfare who fail a drugs test, ONLY if the same drug testing and family snatching is applied to every politician in America.

The politicians are taking public tax money too you know...shouldn't they be tested and penalised too?

I doubt there'd be much support for it in DC...do you?

Originally posted by Virole
Not to play the devil's advocate but at my school there are 6 people I personally know that are on welfare and I saw first hand use drugs.

Wait so you are hanging around with drug addicted welfare recipients?
They can't be all that bad then, right?

Seriously though, I agree with the program but not the abuse of the program.
Corporate welfare, and the White-collar criminals that rob us all of are the real problem with this Country, not these crumb-chasers.

- Lee

I'll be happy to see testing done for people like this.....just as soon as lawmakers and elected officials subject to purely random alcohol and drug screening, without exception or waiver for any reason.

If they'll pee in the cup, I suppose I can too. Of course, pigs will be flying laps before they blow a breathalyzer and pee in a cup on a no-notice random basis themselves, so I suppose they ought to forget that whole idea of having us do it. That's my general thought.

Good sales pitch by someone in the medical industry. It's going to save the taxpayer a lot of money The testing took money from the poor and gave it to the medical trades.

reply to post by conspiracy nut
In the state of Florida their biggest drug abuse problem lies with prescription drugs. Since even if these drugs show up in a drug test the recipients get a pass because they were prescribed by a doctor I feel that the costs outweigh the benefits. The money could be much better spent subsidizing daycare and providing public transportation which would help many of the welfare recipients get back on their feet and become self sufficient.

Anybody can see that the whole thing was a deflection kind of maneuver to turn people's attention away from other issues.

Drug testing welfare recipients really amounts to nothing more than unfair harassment of the weak,which by the way is something this country was founded to keep from happening.

Democracy is nothing but the 51% telling the other 49% how it's gonna be,whether they like it or not.

I lived in florida when idiot Rick Scott was babbling about doing this,I am not surprised the idiot voters down there supported it,since a large percentage of them are on welfare of an acceptable type.

Yeah,let's get some means testing going for those double and triple dippers,you know exactly who you are too,and if you can get by without your disability or whatever,you shouldn't put the burden of paying your way onto the backs of others if you don't really even need the help.....

I don't hold much hope for my species,we so frequently gang up on those who do not have the power to fight back,yet depend on them to produce nearly everything everyone consumes.

Bla!....

Whether 100% test positive or 0% test positive should have no impact on the decision to end welfare.

Its irrelevant.

Welfare, in all its forms, needs to go.

It just goes to show that the stereotype of the lazy, drug addicted, welfare queen sitting atop her throne of government cheese is not nearly as common as some would have everyone believe.

A new CBPP analysis of budget and Census data, however, shows that more than 90 percent of the benefit dollars that entitlement and other mandatory programs[1] spend go to assist people who are elderly, seriously disabled, or members of working households — not to able-bodied, working-age Americans who choose not to work. (See Figure 1.) This figure has changed little in the past few years.

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.

Source

reply to post by Hopechest
One must consider how much economic activity is generated by consumers who cannot afford to consume without help,the economy would collapse overnight without them .

It's kinda like bailing out an economy that can't survive without the participation of those who would otherwise die.

Things have been wrong for a long time,we need to adopt a different economic model,but those in power benefit from it too much to allow changes to occur that are needed for everyone.

Times do change,but money is a doorstop which keeps doors open that should have closed long ago.

Originally posted by littled16
reply to post by conspiracy nut

 

In the state of Florida their biggest drug abuse problem lies with prescription drugs. Since even if these drugs show up in a drug test the recipients get a pass because they were prescribed by a doctor I feel that the costs outweigh the benefits. The money could be much better spent subsidizing daycare and providing public transportation which would help many of the welfare recipients get back on their feet and become self sufficient.

Actually, it's next to impossible for people to get even a small prescription of pain medication in Florida today. The pendulum has swung so far the other way that even those with legitimate pain are told no by fearful drs. My wife just had invasive lung surgery and when her script ran out after recently moving here, she's been told to deal with agonizing pain that leaves her in tears. She went to 2 ers, 4 urgent cares and 2 "pain clinics", and drs there said no way, too scared of the dea.

Seriously..the idiocy...

Where, exactly, is the link between "drug use" and receiving welfare?
Because some (R) governor made a statement like "welfare users are likely drug users"?

Common sense already says that the percentage of drug users with welfare recipients should be about the same percentage as anyone else, maybe *slightly* higher or maybe even lower. The fact they even had the drug testing done based on an such an idiotic statement is ridiculous already.

Let's put it that way: If I were in the situation I were living in the States and being on welfare (due to to unemployment and not finding a job)...and someone would presume that I might be a drug user because of it..I would seriously kick that person's a$$ so hard he'd end up on the moon.

i dont know about that, my sister in law stubbed her toe (she lives in florida) and they prescribed her oxycotin yikes!!!

btw she is not on welfare.

reply to post by conspiracy nut


here's the nitty-gritty


the welfare recipients tested tend to be the enablers
i.e., the moms or wives that actually run the house, take care of the kids and such... the other layabouts who sponge off the 'clean' head-of-household are the doped up ones that the (otherwise) responsible welfare payees shelter and enable out of 'love'


it is a set routine... send in the cleanest, most attentive member to polish-the-apple for the sociologist that awards the welfare payment... impress them once a year to keep the gravy train running... so it is no wonder that only 2% were dirty for RXs or some stuff



the ones that have the doper/conman "profile" are hiding in the shadows & come out to share the good fortune of their benefit magnets


yeah, thats right...im a cynic


i did not even consider the Section 8 people... thats a type of welfare
in Phoenix some 20 years ago i did some repairs on Sec 8 units, i would guess 1 household in 40 was 'clean'
all those Sec. 8 complexes were shooting galleries, lucky that AZ had a very useful pistol carry law then...
one partner did the job, the other stood by the van with a holstered .45

reply to post by St Udio


gravy train? sorry i have never been on welfare, how much could one possible make on welfare to call it a gravy train?

We should have spent that drug test $$ on creating jobs to get them off of Welfare for good

this policy was so stupid and bitter to begin with

a better use of the time and money would have been a "workfare" program where recepients have to do something for the money, even if it's just helping the state with road maintenance. I bet most of these folks could direct traffic at roads work sites

you don't show up, you don't get the money